We were told, "If there is a necessity of the buildup of the fleet, we have a very fine laid-up fleet." We have found that 50 percent were not available because they were too bad to activate. We were told by the same Government agencies, "Well, you have the availability of NATO fleet so you don't need any more vessels."

Congressman, it is a matter of public record what has been done with the NATO fleet. You know what the British and Norwegians have done. You know what the Norwegians have done in trying to highjack the freight rates. You know some of those same NATO fleets in some cases have refused to sail vessels with the munitions for our troops in Vietnam.

This is why I have an opinion. I don't think it is to help this industry at all to put us in Transportation. I think it is to bury us and that is why. That is exactly why, because these people who have cut the throats of this industry, if we get any more difficult situation in Vietnam, the American public is going to ask a lot of questions.

They are going to ask the questions we have been asking and that is why some of them want to bury us at this late stage of the game without any consideration of the President's Advisory Committee. Had they really wanted to know the problems of this industry, they could review that series of hearings running to thousands and thousands of pages of testimony about every single segment of this business.

No consideration was given to that. I don't think any review was made of it. So, how then am I to suppose that the recommendation was made, Congressman, on the basis that it is best for this industry from the point of clearing up our problems.

It simply does not hold water, Congressman.

Mr. ASHLEY. Frankly, the thing that bothers me and confuses me a little bit is that we do have a President that did establish the review panel, that had available to him the results of that study and even after this, he proposes a Department of Transportation which would include the maritime industry.

Mr. HALL. Well, let me tell you if I could read the President's mind, I could make a comment on that, but I am not always sure that the President of the United States has the opportunity of availability of the type of information we are talking about.

I would submit to you that more directly than not, the President must accept the advice and opinion of the people around him. After all, that is the biggest job in the world, Congressman, and maritime is only one part of all those many, many responsibilities and I suggest to you that some of those persons and some of those agencies that have the responsibility of reporting on marine transport in my humble opinion, have not done a proper job.

If they had done a proper job, we would not be faced with the situation in Vietnam where we are really pressed against the wall for the getting of the proper bottoms just to move the munitions and the supplies to our troops.

Mr. ASHLEY. In all truth, we are talking about a President who has the unique background and experience of 20 years in the legislative process as Majority Leader of the Senate.

Can you think of a man who over the years in this position could not help but become familiar with the problem?

Mr. HALL. Congressman, I will you I am not a first-tripper and I have no intention-you can if you like--to wave the President's body

around this room. Instead of talking about the President who is as wise as you say, I would prefer to talk about the Secretary of Defense, the gentleman who had the far-range and long

Mr. ASHLEY. I prefer to talk about the President. It is his proposal, Mr. Hall. I am not talking about Secretary McNamara. Í am talking about the President.

Mr. HALL. You know quite well, Congressman, that the transportation needs of this Nation are more influenced by the Secretary of Defense than most people. You are quite well aware of that and you are quite well aware of the fact of what his recommendations on maritime have been and what his attitude has been.

Rather than talk about the wisdom of the President, Congressman, let us talk about the wisdom of the Secretary of Defense. This is the same Secretary who sold the bombs to the Germans for $1.27 and bought them back for how much? $27. Then the same Secretary who said, "Who said we are short on these bombs? We have got a lot of them."

If you are going to talk about the wisdom of people who have had a lot to say on this industry, talk about the practical part, not the President. Let us talk about the Secretary of Defense, the gentleman who did sell the bombs.

He is the gentleman who, in fact, before the Vietnamese thing broke out said, "It is proven there is no further need for any passenger ships for the purpose of military movements." I don't have to tell you what the record has shown. Rather than talking about the President who appointed this advisory committee, I think we should put the hat where it belongs; that is, within those agencies with Cabinet level officers who do not understand the needs of an industry and who have advised the President to this extent.

I think that is the proper way to judge it. The Secretary of Defense, the $1.27 bombs, the one who said there was no need for American vessels, I think that is why you should pursue the question of wisdom or lack of wisdom.

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hall, I don't know whether or not the gentleman from Ohio, Mr Ashley, was quoting you on page 12 or whether or not he meant to carry it back to my statement to my distinguished friend and former Governor of North Carolina, Secretary Hodges, when he appeared before this committee on the question of Reorganization Plan No. 1. I now recollect. Mr. Ashley, that I made this statement to him in the interrogation and in the colloquy.

"It is my strong feeling." If you recall, that is verbatim the language that I used. And I know on pages 13 and 14 of your statement that you emphasize this question of an independent quasi-judicial maritime board or commission, whose position could not be overturned by an individual without any knowledge or practical knowledge, to say the least, of the maritime industry.

Let us take the present Secretary of Commerce. How does he qualify any more than our distinguished former Secretary, Secretary Hodges?

Mr. HALL. He doesn't.

Mr. LENNON. His background we know, just as we know former Secretary Hodges' background.

Mr. HALL. He does not have any more qualifications in my opinion than Secretary Hodges.

Mr. LENNON. In that category?

Mr. HALL. Yes, that is right.

Mr. LENNON. They were both fine, able, outstanding businessmen. Mr. HALL. That is right.

Mr. LENNON. I don't see how any reasonable, knowledgeable, and fair-minded person can take your exhibit 3 which makes a comparison of the proposed and present legislation, section by section, title by title, and not come up with the unalterable position that we do need an independent maritime administration and particularly do we need an independent quasi-judicial maritime subsidy board both in construction and operating differential.

I was interested in your comments, too, Mr. Hall, when you said that there was a unanimity of agreement among all segments of the labor movement representing all facets of transportation that our maritime industry ought not to be included in the Department of Transportation legislation.

There is, I believe you said, a strong feeling on the part of organized labor that the airlines, the trucks, and the railroads should be in the proposed Department of Transportation.

Mr. HALL. Yes, there has been such expressed feeling.

Mr. LENNON. Would you just for the record furnish two or three statements as to why they feel that this particular industry is unique and differs so from the trucking industry, the railroad industry, the airline industry, and the other modes of transportation and, therefore, should not be included in the Department of Transportation? (See p. 224 for response to the above.)

Mr. HALL. The organizations to which you refer in the transportation industry other than maritime, if you were to question them at this table as I am sitting here today as to why in their opinion, the maritime industry should be excluded from the Department of Transportation, I believe they would pretty much be of the same reasoning that

we are.

That is as follows: That the maritime industry is unique as this position sets forth for example. It is only similar to one type of transportation and that is aviation. I mean in the sense that there is a degree of similarity.

To start with, the maritime industry competes right alongside of the foreign competition. That makes it unique to the degree that airplanes are. Past that, it is the question of commission. For example, it has ben pretty well established that this industry puts on the plus side of the balance of payments $1 billion.

The reverse is that the runaway flags take away a billion dollars and contribute to the minus side. There is the question of the economics of the country. To break that economics down a little further, the people in the other transportation industries realize that to preserve this industry by separate, independent status would be that the cities of whether it be Norfolk, or Baltimore, it would be helped considerably and they understand that to keep the American flag afloat, there must be special consideration.

They recognize the political nature of the maritime industry in the sense that where we have given aid to Greece, the Marshall plan,

cargoes under the Truman doctrine, where we have moved wheat to India and Pakistan, the political aspects on other than the humanitarian aspects, meaning the availability of American vessels to move that wheat, this is a political other than a humane consideration. There are the types of things that would make them feel that maritime is different.

Mr. LENNON. It is a unique industry?

Mr. HALL. These are just some of the reasons. Of course, they all recognize that the maritime industry is in the frontline of any problem as to national defense; that it is not secondary in that aspect, but is on the frontline and because of that, it needs special consideration. Mr. LENNON. I am glad you said that, because I recall some 4 years ago, approximately, that the former chairman of this committee and I took the position that it was a unique industry and, therefore, perhaps we ought to move in the direction of what was then referred to as compulsory arbitration in labor disputes.

I see now the relationship that you have just pointed out between the maritime industry and the general aviation industry. My point then and also the point of the distinguished former chairman of this committee was that this industry was unique and different, and therefore, we had to apply different criteria with respect to managementlabor disputes, but that was not accepted by your organization or by the administration.

Now, it is beginning to be the feeling on the part of a lot of people that we are going to have to come to the time in the aviation industry and the maritime industry when, perhaps, there ought to be an independent court established to resolve these very delicate and complex problems involving our relationships between management and labor. Certainly, a public strike involves a national interest. Comment has been made by the gentlelady from Missouri that, very likely, the Department of Transportation legislation would be brought to the floor within a time frame of 2 or 3 weeks.

Do you think it would be helpful to those of us who believe this ought to be an independent agency if the bill was reported out of this committee? Would it not have some influence in our efforts to take out of the Department of Transportation legislation the maritime administration when it did come to the floor?

Mr. HALL. Congressman, I am not a legislative tactician or expert, but it would seem to me with what limited knowledge I might have that if this committee would already have passed or as soon as possible pass this legislation, it would assist us in that direction.

Mr. LENNON. Certainly, it would help on the floor in our efforts to take the Maritime Administration out of that bill, if this committee had a bill pending that the Congress could consider in its wisdom and judgment. I want to talk to you about the Coast Guard.

How is the Coast Guard related to the Maritime Administration generally?

Mr. HALL. The Coast Guard, to make a thumbnail description, is the police agency for the merchant marine. It is the agency for the inspection of the vessels and for the issuance and maintaining of papers of the seamen.

They have a direct relationship to the maritime agency in this respect.

Mr. LENNON. Their missions and roles are in many ways related to the maritime industry.

Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. I don't suppose you would want to comment on whether the Coast Guard ought to be included in the Department of Transportation.

Mr. HALL. No. As far as we are concerned, the role that the Coast Guard plays in relation to the industry is one that we understand. From our point of view, it isn't urgent or important as to what point on the total scene in relation to maritime that the Coast Guard is in because of the type of functions in which they deal with the maritime industry.

They are limited to certain areas and from whatever position they would work, it would seem to me it would all be the same. They are not policymaking in any respect for the industry. They are in effect, as I have said-and there are those that would quarrel with the labelbut I think it is the best label to say that they are like a police agency to see that the fellow is a competent master, or an ordinary seaman does not carry his papers, this type of activity.

Mr. LENNON. I want to thank you for a very fine statement and say that, while you and I do not always agree, I am a great admirer of yours because I think you are a man of conviction.

Mr. HALL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watkins.

Mr. WATKINS. I have no questions, Mr. Hall. I am certainly delighted to see you here being so forthright in your statement in support of this legislation. I, of course, agree with you and I can't understand why some of the men under the President can't understand that we have a dying industry, but we will have a dead industry if we don't do something about it.

I am very delighted to see you here and hear your testimony.
Mr. HALL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hathaway.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I want to thank you for your

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. On the record. Mr. Hathaway.

statement.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I suppose to a certain extent, this affects all modes of transportation. The ones that are devoting their time to wartime carrying are losing customers that they normally have.

Mr. HALL. I don't think that this would apply to any other industry as it would the maritime. First, in the domestic industry, obviously, this would not be the case. Secondly, in relation to aviation, the degree of participation in the war effort is something that I have no knowledge of but aviation has additional support from Government that we do not have.

You know what that is in the billions of dollars in that industry for the purpose of development and new types of equipment and in the final analysis, while paid for by Government, the commercial carrier is the beneficiary of that type of development. I do not think that the comparison would be proper even between maritime and aviation and there would be no comparison in relation to maritime and what is normally local transportation, trucking, railroads, and so forth. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you very much.